The implausibility of brainless minds

[atanu]

What does that have to do with a mind?

What it has to do with a brain?

Again, it's a metaphor. The mind requires enormous amount of calculations to exist, and yet some propose that it can exist on its own, or outside of a mind. Or that consciousness can somehow be worthwhile without a mind.

The installer of Windows 7 on a new machine needs none of that particular knowledge.

 

[Penumbra]

What it has to do with a brain?

A brain provides the computation for a mind. The mind, as far as evidenced is concerned, is an emergent property of the brain. There does not exist any demonstrated mind outside of a brain.

The installer of Windows 7 on a new machine needs none of that particular knowledge.

In what way does that relate?

 

[Willamena]

Suffering quite demonstratably depends on none of those things. In fact, almost all suffering relies on physical objects; if you can control those, you can remove suffering.

I guess that depends on what you consider suffering to be.

 

[Willamena]

To reverse the model, and say that physics in all its glory is a consequence of some aspect of human thinking sounds ludicrous for the very simple reason that humans struggle massively merely understanding how the universe works at its deepest levels, let alone actually working through it.

Unless, of course, it's not the model "reversed," and in being "(not) reversed," it loses none of its glory.

That (loss of glory) is an inherent bias in materialistic thinking that says, quite plainly, that "we" (thinking beings, thoughts, emotions, mind) are not good enough to rate being. (It's a perversion of the Dharmic idea of 'no self'; it's 'not-deserving self'. )

 

[DreadFish]

Mind is mind because of things, and things are things because of mind. The mind does not exist on its own, as the mind is only the experiencer of objects and objects are only the experience of the mind. Neither exist without the other and both are impermanent phenomena.

Consciousness is conditioned by the body (which includes the brain) and is limited to certain perceptions because of this.

On a side note, I have read of verified near death experiences in which the person was officially brain dead. They were able to recall certain things they saw the Dr.s doing and things around the room after having left the physical body.

This isnt what I originally read years ago, but goes along the lines of it:

“For the people who had a near-death experience and out of body experience [their recollection of resuscitation] was really quite accurate and I decided then to ask the control group, the people who’d had a cardiac arrest but had no recollection of anything at all. I asked them if they would reenact their resuscitation scenario and tell me what they thought that we had done to resuscitate them. And what I found is that many of the patients couldn’t even guess as to what we’d done. They had no idea at all. And then some of them did make guesses, but these were based on TV hospital dramas that they’d seen. I found that what they reported was widely inaccurate. So there was a stark contrast really in the very accurate out of body experiences reported and then the guesses that the control group had made.”, Dr. Sartori reported.

While research like this may never be enough to convince dogmatic skeptics, the medical evidence for near death experience continues to challenge us to reexamine our beliefs about what lies beyond death.

On another side note, why is it imagination to assume that more exists than what we are able to perceive or measure thus far? Perhaps it is more naive to assume that only that which is measurable and physical can exist. I have observed that some who rely on science and reason and refute spiritual claims are in fact no different than those who share the opposite view, they just happen to have a different perspective, yet are no more intelligent or reasonable than those who have opposing views (sometimes less intelligent too).

Dreams almost always seem real until we wake up from them, then the things that took place in them often dont make sense to us any more

Sources: Skeptiko – Science at the Tipping Point » Blog Archive » 90. EEG Expert Can

 

[atanu]

A brain provides the computation for a mind. The mind, as far as evidenced is concerned, is an emergent property of the brain. There does not exist any demonstrated mind outside of a brain.

This is not answer to the question i asked.

And since you conclude that the brain -- a seen thing, is the source of the Seer who sees, i see not much point in continuining. All these points have been answered earlier in the thread, which you have not read.

In what way does that relate?

You assume that identity is in name-form. It is not so.

 

[Me Myself]

IT all boils down to the fact that we have no evidence to say consience ends when the body stops moving.

We all have consiousness now (unless the admins made a bad job keeping out the robots! ) and to be fair, there is no evidence that the onsiousness will disappear when the body stops moving. There is evidence this body will desintegrate and stop mobving, but not that the consience will do so.

 

[DreadFish]

IT all boils down to the fact that we have no evidence to say consience ends when the body stops moving.

We all have consiousness now (unless the admins made a bad job keeping out the robots! ) and to be fair, there is no evidence that the onsiousness will disappear when the body stops moving. There is evidence this body will desintegrate and stop mobving, but not that the consience will do so.

To go along with this, a modern enlightened man Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi realized enlightenment in a moment when he was suddenly struck with the overwhelming feeling that he was going to die. In that moment he realized that he was not his body and realized the true nature of the self.

I also know a personal friend who experienced something similar. When suddenly faced with a similar incident, he hesitantly but firmly decided to let go of himself. In that moment, he left his body and merged with everything, having dropped his individual self, he saw everything he thought he knew about everything dissolve and for a moment experienced the true nature of reality.

 

[Penumbra]

This is not answer to the question i asked.

You asked what it has to do with the brain. I explained what it had to do with the brain.

And since you conclude that the brain -- a seen thing, is the source of the Seer who sees, i see not much point in continuining. All these points have been answered earlier in the thread, which you have not read.

You assume that identity is in name-form. It is not so.

Can you show me a Seer that exists without a brain, or evidence that one exists?

 

[Copernicus]

You misunderstand, my question is what makes yu think you don´t act on faith? You have faith in the existence of the material world.

There are many definitions of faith, and that is somewhat off-topic here. Science is based on "faith" in the sense that it takes experiences to be reliable evidence of what reality is like.

I don´t know about you, but I´ve felt pleasure, pain, perfumes, tastes and all kinds of all kinds in my dreams. There is nothing that casn prove you that the material world is real. It is a believe that works for you for now. This can change, but to say it definetely is, is working on faith.

You can feel all of those things if someone stimulates the appropriate location of your brain with an electrode. Brain surgeons do that sort of thing all the time during operations in which the patient is conscious.

 

[Me Myself]

There are many definitions of faith, and that is somewhat off-topic here. Science is based on "faith" in the sense that it takes experiences to be reliable evidence of what reality is like.

i don´t think is off-topic. You believe in material world because it feels real to you. People believe in spiritual realities because it feels real to them.

You can feel all of those things if someone stimulates the appropriate location of your brain with an electrode. Brain surgeons do that sort of thing all the time during operations in which the patient is conscious.

My point is that you don´t need to be living them to experience them, this that you cite (which I wasn´t unaware of) does further my point in that you can´t actually know anything for sure. Ultimately, we believe what feels right to us.

 

[atanu]

You asked what it has to do with the brain. I explained what it had to do with the brain.

So half life on an element is controlled from your brain?

Can you show me a Seer that exists without a brain, or evidence that one exists?

The question itself presupposes a duality -- a superimposition of a seen thing as the Seer. The question is meaningless with that presupposition.

 

[Penumbra]

So half life on an element is controlled from your brain?

No. What does the half life of an element have to do with a brain or a mind?

The question itself presupposes a duality -- a superimposition of a seen thing as the Seer. The question is meaningless with that presupposition.

You seem to find it unlikely that the brain is the source of a seer, and yet when asked to show evidence of the existence of a Seer without a brain, you cannot?

 

[Copernicus]

Because your argument is based on dismissing claims made by religions and so I am saying that according to those religious concepts, your argument is flawed. It has nothing to do with my understanding of the nature of Spirit.

First of all, the OP said: "Most religions depend on the belief that mental activity can occur independently of brains." I am only talking about that dependency, which may or may not be relevant to your religious beliefs.

Secondly, you did not really answer my question. I'll ask it again: "Madhuri, how are you in a position to know about the "laws governing Spirit" any more than I am?" On what basis could you claim to know anything at all about those "laws"?

Maybe we can't know. Or maybe we aren't evolved enough to know. Each religion gives different criteria of how we can come to know or experience this alternative reality, and so the only way to find out if it is true or not (based on its own claims) is to practice the disciplines and rule them out if they don't work.

But most religions are grounded in a mind-body dualism that assumes the mind can exist independently of a functioning brain.

Whether or not the individual chooses to pursue such a path to find out its validity is their own prerogative. Some are motivated by the expressed experiences of others or by their own phenomenal experiences.

People can choose to pursue any path they want, even ones that have no basis in reality. Finding paths that are grounded in reality is the real challenge.

As to the first statement, each religion is likely to provide a different answer. I could give you my opinion, but what my religion says regarding this is straying from my argument. My argument is only that to make a claim about spirit, you have to actually address the specifics regarding the believed or taught nature of spirit in order to be able to properly defeat it. The OP is an invalid argument, imo, because it shows a lack of understanding of what it is attempting to defeat.

The OP is very clear about what it is "attempting to defeat". Whether or not that applies to your specific beliefs depends on what they are. You admit that different religions--and I would say even people who practice the same religion--have different definitions of the spiritual "laws". Science is different in that it reaches consensus on material "laws". That is because we are in a position to discover physical laws. There is no reliable method for checking the validity of any spiritual laws. That is why neither you nor your religious sources are really in a position to say anything about them.

 

[Copernicus]

On a side note, I have read of verified near death experiences in which the person was officially brain dead. They were able to recall certain things they saw the Dr.s doing and things around the room after having left the physical body.

Near Death Experiences (NDEs) and Out Of Body Experiences (OBEs) represent prima facie evidence that minds can "leave the body" so to speak. So far, there has been no confirmation that NDEs represent anything more than the effects of oxygen starvation or some other physical event in the brain. OBEs can be subjectively induced with drugs and even optical illusions. Also, it seems rather strange that people who have such experiences claim to hear and see things, even though their physical equipment for interacting with physical reality (ears and eyes) are gone.

On another side note, why is it imagination to assume that more exists than what we are able to perceive or measure thus far? Perhaps it is more naive to assume that only that which is measurable and physical can exist. I have observed that some who rely on science and reason and refute spiritual claims are in fact no different than those who share the opposite view, they just happen to have a different perspective, yet are no more intelligent or reasonable than those who have opposing views (sometimes less intelligent too).

This is a straw man argument. Nobody is claiming that things we cannot experience do not exist. Nor is anyone claiming that we can learn everything through science. We are just looking at things that we do experience and drawing inferences from those experiences. It is true that we cannot know everything, but that does not license beliefs for which there are no justifications. I do not claim that minds cannot exist independently of brains. What I do claim is that the evidence supports the belief that minds depend on brains for their existence.

 

[Copernicus]

i don´t think is off-topic. You believe in material world because it feels real to you. People believe in spiritual realities because it feels real to them.

The point is that I can methodically corroborate my beliefs about the material world. There is no way to corroborate claims about thought or experiences claimed to be 'spiritual'. Hence, we have no way to distinguish beliefs about the spirit world from false beliefs.

My point is that you don´t need to be living them to experience them, this that you cite (which I wasn´t unaware of) does further my point in that you can´t actually know anything for sure. Ultimately, we believe what feels right to us.

You can believe anything you want. The trick is to distinguish between what is real and what is not. Experience is the final arbiter. If we cannot corroborate our beliefs then we are treading on mental quicksand.

 

[atanu]

The trick is to distinguish between what is real and what is not. Experience is the final arbiter. If we cannot corroborate our beliefs then we are treading on mental quicksand.

With an awareness that is supposed to have arisen deterministically out of chemical interaction, you are just an illusion. How are your observations any real?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Is it plausible that maybe some components of our minds like memory could be transfered to another computational device that functions like a brain?

 

[Penumbra]

With an awareness that is supposed to have arisen deterministically out of chemical interaction, you are just an illusion. How are your observations any real?

How are you defining the words illusion and real, in this question?

What, in your opinion, makes experiences or observations, real?

 

[atanu]

No. What does the half life of an element have to do with a brain or a mind?

Where does the computation happen?

You seem to find it unlikely that the brain is the source of a seer, and yet when asked to show evidence of the existence of a Seer without a brain, you cannot?

I can. But I know that ou are stuck in illusion that the seen world is the reality as it is. And thus, if you think that a seen thing is the source of the Seer then so be it. Cannot help it. The brain does not tell you anything. It is you who deduce things.

The only direct proof of consciousness at disposal of science is through verbal reports. I asked earlier (which you have surely not read) as to what kind of audible report can be expected from an unembodied consciousness? It is simply impossible. Only experience of oneself can indicate the truth.

if you are willing to agree that particular knowledge of waking state is a representation, you will realise that in dream state, consciousness itself undergoes division into subject and object. From first party perspective there is no matter from which ideas are given shape in dream consciousness.

I quote from an earlier discussion a few points which you did not answer earlier.

The premise, merelely based on correlates is that intelligence emerges from the physical brain.

Awareness is not true property of material things, which have true physical properties like mass, color etc. that remain true always. A a dead body or any of its part does not exhibit awareness. This indicates that awareness has a separate reality from materials.

Have we seen any conscious physical product? Life is not just the measurable material -- it is unique and there is no evidence of any 'conscious material product'. Yet some apply the concepts of 'material sciences' to that which is evidently not similar to other materials. How rational is that?


Materialists argue and insist that intelligence with which we measure everything should itself be measurable/visible/graspable. How rational is that? Have we seen any product to unravel its own cause?

Materialists observe correlation between brain structure (physical) to events (physically measured or observed) and translate the correlation as the cause of consciousness. How rational is that? Both the observations of the brain structures and the phenomena are representational and subjective. How rational it is to link two representations as cause and effects, at the same time relegating the conscious subject itself?

If we assume that us and our awareness are causally determined, then we are illusions. What is the validity of our knowledge?

OTOH, awareness never ceases to be the underlying factor beneath whatever is known. How rational it is to bury this awareness, which exists just fine without any representation, beneath the derived representational pictures?